首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (AS
【24h】

Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (AS

机译:在盎格鲁-斯堪的纳维亚心脏试验试验中,降血脂的氨氯地平降压方案(根据需要加培哚普利和阿替洛尔(根据需要加苯达氟甲肼)来预防心血管事件)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

BACKGROUND: The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and beta blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and beta blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40-79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5-10 mg adding perindopril 4-8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50-100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1.25-2.5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The study was stopped prematurely after 5.5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.02, p=0.1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0.77, 0.66-0.89, p=0.0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0.84, 0.78-0.90, p<0.0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0.89, 0.81-0.99, p=0.025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0.70, 0.63-0.78, p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents.
机译:背景:早期高血压试验中指出的预防冠心病(CHD)的明显不足归因于使用利尿剂和β受体阻滞剂的缺点。对于给定的血压降低,一些人认为,较之利尿药和β受体阻滞剂,新型药物会带来优势。因此,我们的目的是比较阿替洛尔与噻嗪类药物合用氨氯地平与培哚普利对非致命性心肌梗塞和致命性冠心病的影响。方法:我们对19257例40-79岁且至少具有其他三个心血管危险因素的高血压患者进行了一项多中心,前瞻性,随机对照试验。为患者分配氨氯地平5-10 mg,根据需要添加培哚普利4-8 mg(基于氨氯地平的方案; n = 9639)或阿替洛尔50-100 mg,根据需要添加1.25-2.5 mg苯达氟甲酰肼和钾(基于替诺洛尔的方案; n = 9618)。我们的主要终点是非致命性心肌梗塞(包括无症状性心肌梗塞)和致命性冠心病。分析是按意向进行的。结果:在对中位数进行5.5年的随访之后,该研究被提前终止,并在总共106 153个患者年的观察中积累。与基于阿替洛尔的方案相比,尽管不显着,但基于氨氯地平方案的主要终点患者较少(429 vs 474;未经调整的HR 0.90、95%CI 0.79-1.02,p = 0.1052),致命和非致命中风(327 vs 422; 0.77,0.66-0.89,p = 0.0003),总心血管事件和操作(1362 vs 1602; 0.84,0.78-0.90,p <0.0001)和全因死亡率(738 vs 820; 0.89, 0.81-0.99,p = 0.025)。在基于氨氯地平的治疗方案中,发展中的糖尿病的发生率较低(567比799; 0.70,0.63-0.78,p <0.0001)。解释:与基于阿替洛尔的方案相比,基于氨氯地平的方案可预防更多的重大心血管事件并减少糖尿病。根据先前的试验证据,可能无法通过更好地控制血压来完全解释这些影响,并且此问题将在随附的文章中解决。然而,该结果对于抗高血压药的最佳组合有影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号